Annual Evaluation Standards & Procedures

ANNUAL EVALUATION STANDARDS & PROCEDURES

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

Initially Approved by Economics Department Faculty On February 26, 1999 First Revisions Approved by Faculty on April 11, 2003 Final Version accepted by CEC on 8/7/03 Second Revisions Approved by the Committee September 19, 2005 Second Revisions Approved by Faculty September 22, 2005 Third Revisions Approved by Procedures and Standards Committee October 5, 2006 and by the Faculty October 6, 2006 Fourth Revisions Approved by Procedures and Standards Committee September 21, 2007 and by the Faculty October 3, 2007 Fifth Revisions Approved by Procedures and Standards Committee December 1, 2008, by the Faculty December 5, 2008, by the College December 5, 2008 and by Academic Affairs, January 29, 2009.

2 ANNUAL EVALUATION STANDARDS & PROCEDURES

Department of Economics College of Business Administration University of Central Florida

Introduction

The Department of Economics Annual Evaluation Standards and Procedures (AESP) is a work assignment and evaluation system designed for faculty professional performance appraisal within the Department of Economics. It applies to all full-time tenured, tenure- earning, and non-tenure appointments.

Objectives of the Plan:

 Provide a range of work assignments that permit faculty members, in consultation with their chair, to assess the choice of the track that best matches their teaching and research capabilities, professional goals, and interests to the mission of the Department.

 Allow faculty members to capitalize on their professional strengths and be evaluated and rewarded relative to those strengths.

 Promote high quality research and teaching by Economics faculty members.

 Facilitate the evaluation of faculty members’ professional performance of assigned duties.

Modifications of the Annual Evaluation Standards & Procedures

The Department of Economics Faculty Annual Evaluation Standards & Procedures must be dynamic. The Plan may require periodic changes as a result of changes in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and changes in the Department and College missions and objectives.

PART I - WORKLOAD TRACKS Evaluation Weights by Assignment Track

Each year the Department Chair will assess each faculty member’s professional performance based on teaching, research, and service activities, as well as other duties as applicable. Overall evaluations will be determined by weighting performance on teaching, research, and

3 service by the faculty member’s FTE assignment on each component. Table 1 contains the weights for teaching, research and service components for each AESP option.

Table 1 Evaluation Weights by Workload Assignment

Professional Track A Track B Track C Track D Track E Track F Activity 8-Courses 7-Courses 6-Courses 5-Courses 4-Courses 3-Courses Teaching 85 – 90% 80% 60% 50% 40% 30% Research 0 – 5% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% Service 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

A faculty member’s time will be allocated in the proportions given in Table 1 and will depend on their workload assignment. Each faculty member’s annual performance evaluation will be based upon the actual workload for that year. That is, it will be based upon the actual course equivalents, the actual research assignment, etc. Course equivalents will be determined by College of Business Administration policy and the Chair in consultation with the Dean. Overall evaluations will be determined by weighting performance on each of the components (teaching, research, service and other) by the faculty member’s FTE assignment.

Workload Assignment and Change Procedures

Every third year each faculty member will request a track assignment (number of courses within the track range) that will last for a period of three years. This request must be made in writing by May 1 of the year preceding the spring semester in which the new workload assignment is to begin. There is no default track.

Requests for an assignment should be made by submitting the Faculty Workload Assignment Application that is provided in Appendix A of this document. The Chair will notify the faculty member of the assignment prior to making the final written assignment. Upon written request, faculty may appeal workload assignments to the Dean.

A faculty member may request a reassignment to a different workload track during the course of a three-year assignment period. The Chair can initiate a change in workload assignment based on demonstrated performance. The Dean must approve all changes in workload assignments.

The Department Chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will decide on the distribution of courses between the semesters. For example, a faculty member who is assigned to the “ F “ track (3 courses per year) could teach a 1-2 load, a 2-1 load, a 0-3 load or a 3-0 load. In making this allocation the Chair will balance the faculty member’s research and teaching goals with the overall departmental teaching needs and objectives.

4 Assessment of Overall Professional Performance

Consistent with University policy and time deadlines, at the beginning of each year faculty members will submit an annual report to the Chair for review and evaluation. The overall evaluation rating and the rating of each of the areas of professional activities (teaching, research, service, and other) will be based on the scale given in Table 2. The overall evaluation rating will be calculated using the weighted average of the points earned across all activities for each workload assignment as described in Table 1.

Table 2 Evaluation Scale

Evaluation Label Point Value Rating Range Unsatisfactory 0.0 0 – 0.49 Conditional 1.0 0.50 – 1.00 Satisfactory 2.0 1.01 – 2.00 Above Satisfactory 3.0 2.01 – 3.00 Outstanding 4.0 3.01 – 4.00

PART II – EVALUATION OF TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SERVICE

Evaluation of Teaching Performance The Chair will evaluate the teaching component of each faculty member's assignment and rate this performance using the evaluation scale shown in Table 2. As part of the annual report, faculty will submit a teaching portfolio for review and evaluation. Faculty members are encouraged to document all aspects of their teaching in order to fully describe their effectiveness.

The teaching evaluation will be based only on teaching activities in the current evaluation year. While recognizing that effective teaching has many aspects, the evaluation of the faculty teaching component of a faculty member's workload will be based primarily along three broad professional dimensions:  The academic content and pedagogy used in courses as documented by each faculty member;  Student, peer and self documented measures of teaching effectiveness; and  Documented evidence of teaching effectiveness in student learning.

Evaluation of teaching will utilize the guidelines listed below:

 An “Outstanding” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has consistently exceeded expectations in all dimensions of teaching performance described above during the period of evaluation.

5  An “Above Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has exceeded expectations in one or more of the dimensions.  A “Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned to teaching performance if the faculty member has documented meeting University, College, and Department policies and procedures and professional expectations for course delivery in all dimensions.  A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet University policies and procedures and professional expectations for course delivery in at least one of the three dimensions described above.  An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet University policies and procedures and professional expectations for course delivery in two or more of the dimensions described above during the period of evaluation.

Evaluation of Research Performance

The research component of each faculty member's assignment will be evaluated based on research accomplishments over the most recent three-year period as described in the annual report. The research accomplishments will be evaluated using the scale shown in Table 2. The Chair may choose to get input from a faculty advisory committee regarding the faculty’s research evaluation, but the ultimate performance evaluation is the sole responsibility of the Chair.

The Chair shall consider the full range of research productivity and the contribution of this productivity to each faculty member’s research program and the mission of the Department. Faculty members should fully document their research productivity. In determining the relative importance of different indicators of research productivity, the Chair will give the highest importance to the following indicators:  the quantity and quality of publications in peer-reviewed journals and other academic outlets,  research contracts and grants,  presenting papers at national and international conferences,  internal and external awards recognizing published research,  maintaining academic currency for AACSB/SACS accreditation,  and other contributions to the research productivity of the Department.

Newly hired assistant professors with no credit towards tenure will have their research in the first two years evaluated on the basis of identifiable research activities (e.g. publications, journal submissions, revise and resubmits, etc.). New hires that receive credit toward tenure may include their publications during the period for which they were given credit.

Evaluation of research will utilize the guidelines listed below:

 An “Outstanding” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has excelled in several or all of the indicators used to evaluate research performance.

6  An “Above Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member meets the criteria for ‘satisfactory’ and has significant contributions to two or more of the indicators.  A “Satisfactory” evaluation will indicate the faculty member has published in high quality peer-reviewed journals or other academic outlets appropriate to the workload assignment and has made some additional contributions.  A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet Department expectations for publications in high quality peer-reviewed journals or other academic outlets appropriate to the workload assignment.  An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet Department expectations for publications in high quality peer-reviewed journals or other academic outlets appropriate to the workload assignment, and also fails to make contributions in a majority of the other indicator areas.

Evaluation of Service Performance The service component of each faculty member's assignment will be evaluated based on activities described in the annual report and rated by the Chair on the scale in Table 2. Service is expected of all faculty members. However, the type of service activity can be expected to vary based on the professional focus of a given individual. Individual ratings are associated with a record of consistent effort and quality contributions.

The Chair shall consider the full range of service contributions in evaluating the service performance of faculty members. Service contributions upon which faculty members will be assessed may include activities at the departmental, college or university levels (except United Faculty of Florida service is not included); external professional involvement in one’s discipline; and public/community service. Documentation or other supporting evidence should be provided by the faculty member. Service contributions in each of these three areas may include:  Departmental, college, or university-level service, including committee activities and leadership positions; student advising; guest lectureship; and Faculty Senate appointments.  Professional service, including editorial activities (e.g., serving as a reviewer or editor of scholarly publications); and professional association activities (e.g., committee or executive council membership).  Public/Community service, including expert activities and committee membership at the local, state, or federal levels (e.g., task force or program assessment committee activities).

Evaluation of service will utilize the guidelines listed below:

 An “Outstanding” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has made exceptional contributions in two or three of the areas described above.  An “Above Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has made significant contributions in one or more of the areas described above.  A “Satisfactory” evaluation will indicate the faculty member has been active in one or more of the three areas described above during the period of evaluation.

7  A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the criteria above to achieve a “Satisfactory” evaluation.  An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the criteria above to achieve a “Satisfactory” evaluation, and actively resists/rejects participation in service activities, whether they might be elected, appointed, or ad hoc requests from the Chair.

Evaluation of Performance for Other Activities

Other university duties are occasionally assigned for special activities such as administrative duties or other special projects. Since the nature of these assignments is variable, no attempt is made to specify evaluation dimensions in proportion to the total amount of time the assignment is weighted in the annual assignment form.

Relationship Between Annual Evaluation and Tenure/Promotion

A faculty member’s annual evaluation in the College of Business Administration is just one of numerous components that are examined in the University tenure and/or promotion process. Therefore, it should NOT be construed that achieving a satisfactory or above rating in any or all annual evaluations will automatically result in a positive tenure or promotion decision.

Appraisal of Progress toward Promotion and Tenure

Consistent with University policy and time deadlines, tenure-earning faculty members in the Department of Economics will be independently reviewed each year by a Department committee comprised of all tenured faculty. A separate review will be conducted by the Department Chair and the Dean. Each tenure-earning faculty member will submit for review a comprehensive dossier of research publications and work in progress, in addition to his/her annual performance report. Promotion and tenure appraisals are based on cumulative performance, including the current year. The Chair may consider appraisal outcomes when assessing annual performance.

With respect to expectations, the Department places primary emphasis on publishing discipline-based scholarship in top quality refereed journals. In addition to an emphasis on targeting and placing scholarship in top quality outlets, consistency in producing scholarship over the years leading to application for promotion and/or tenure as well as a strong programmatic focus to the scholarship are of prime importance.

A successful applicant for promotion and/or tenure must demonstrate competence in scholarship and have made significant contribution(s) to the advancement of knowledge in one or more well-defined fields within the Economics discipline. Moreover, there is an assessment of the likelihood that research performance after achieving promotion and/or tenure will continue at, or exceed, current levels of performance. A major indicator of this proclivity is establishing oneself as the primary/lead researcher in a well-defined program of research focused on a specific field. Evidence of the contribution takes the form of an

8 accumulated number of publications in top-quality, peer-reviewed journals, as well as a significant amount of quality research under review and in-process.

Implementation The revised version of the Annual Evaluation Standards and Procedures is effective January 1, 2010.

9 Appendix A DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS WORKLOAD ASSIGNMENT APPLICATION

Faculty Name (PRINT)

Faculty Department or School

Current Workload Assignment (No. of courses per academic year)

Proposed Workload Assignment (No. of courses per academic year)

When Proposed Workload Assignment Would Begin (Semester & year)

Summary Justification for Assignment (Use only the space below)

Required Attachments: Current Vita Summary of Research Activities

10 Summary of Research Activities

1. Describe the research theme(s) that you will emphasize over the upcoming three years. Indicate why you believe this theme(s) is important.

2. Complete the following Faculty Research Summary for both current and proposed research.

3. Attach current vitae.

______Faculty Signature

11 UCF Business – Department of Economics Faculty Research Summary Current Research: Proposed Submission Project Title or Description Target Publication *Type Date Co-author(s)

*Type: B=Basic Scholarship, A=Applied Scholarship, I=Instructional Development

12 The following decision has been reached regarding the proposed three-year workload assignment.

Faculty Name (PRINT)

Faculty Department or School

Approved as Proposed Workload Assignment (No. of courses per academic year)

When Workload Assignment Will Begin (Semester & year)

Approved as Modified Below

Workload Assignment (No. of courses per academic year)

When Workload Assignment Will Begin (Semester & year)

______Chair/Director Signature

______Dean Signature

______Date

Comments:

I acknowledge receiving my workload assignment

______Faculty Signature

______Date